A small scale alternative to bankruptcy or an individual voluntary arrangement whereby a debtor who is unable to pay a judgment that has been entered against him may apply for an order that the county court administer his estate.

Court Reference No. [number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [location]] INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD) OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION [location] DISTRICT REGISTRY OR IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [location]] [The Honourable Mr(s) Justice OR [His OR Her] Honour Judge] [name] Dated [date] IN THE MATTER OF [company name] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 BETWEEN

This Practice Note provides high-level guidance on the administration regimes for UK banks, investment firms, building societies and investment banks under: • the Banking Act 2009 (BA 2009) • the Building Societies (Insolvency and Special Administration) Order 2009, SI 2009/805 (Building Societies Order 2009), and • the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011, SI 2011/245 (IB Regulations 2011) Banking Act 2009 BA 2009 was intended to improve the resilience of the UK financial systems, and support financial stability by strengthening depositor protection and providing mechanisms for dealing with banks in financial difficulties. Among other things, BA 2009 introduced a special resolution regime (SRR).The SRR grants powers to HM Treasury, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England (BoE) for dealing with banks, banking group companies, investment firms, building societies and UK branches of third-country institutions in financial difficulties. Central counterparties (CCPs) are subject to a separate special resolution regime under section 57 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (FSMA 2023)

Real estate often forms part of the assets of an insolvent company to be sold by an administrator and can frequently be key to a potential buyer so it can continue the business after completion. However, a buyer does need to be aware that there are a number of significant differences in the acquisition of a property from an insolvent company and the buyer will need to take a different approach from when a company is solvent. This Practice Note highlights the key differences in approach between acquiring property from a solvent company and one that is in administration, typically in the context of leasehold transactions, although many of the points raised will also apply to freehold transactions. Difference in approach compared to a solvent seller of property Due diligence and timescales Contracts for the sale and purchase of land are founded on the legal principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) which means

For information on the various grants of representation that personal representatives (PRs) may need to apply for, see Practice Note: The type of grant needed. In the majority of situations where the deceased has left a valid Will, there will be at least one executor appointed in the Will who has survived and is willing and capable of acting as such. One or more of the appointed executors will then go ahead and apply for a grant of probate in the usual way. In some cases, the first named executors will not be willing or able to act but there will be one or more substitute executors named in the Will who will. See Practice Note: Application for a grant of representation. However, it is not unusual for all the executors and any substitute executors named in the Will either to have predeceased the testator or for them not to be capable or willing to act in the estate. Sometimes, an executor may survive the deceased and even take a grant of probate

Administration is a procedure designed to give a company breathing space, with a view to either a rescue or a restructure or to allow for a better outcome for all creditors than a liquidation. The main legislative provisions governing administration are contained in section 8 and Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, rr 3.1–3.70. An administrator is an insolvency practitioner who is appointed under IA 1986 to manage the company’s business and property to achieve one of the three purposes of administration set out under IA 1986. The statutory objectives of an administration (in order of priority) are: • a rescue of the company as a going concern • a better outcome for creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up • a realisation of the company’s assets to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors In practice, rescuing the company as a going concern is unlikely to be achievable

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court granted permission to appeal the refusal of an administration order where fresh evidence obtained after the first hearing suggested that the court had been misled by the company. The court considered the obligations of the parties to an administration application to present reliable evidence to the court, and the impact of unreliable evidence on the cogency of a party’s evidence. The court considered the appropriate procedure where the losing party subsequently discovers evidence that suggests the court was misled. By Matthew Parfitt, barrister, at Erskine Chambers (who appeared for the successful appellant).

This Practice Note addresses what happens in practice after the administrator has been appointed, and what statutory tasks the administrator has to undertake under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 in their role as administrator. There are a number of notice requirements the administrator must comply with immediately upon appointment. The notice requirements depend on the route to appointment. Further detail can be found in Practice Notes: • Out-of-court administration appointments by a company or its directors—the procedure • Out-of-court administration appointments by a QFCH—the procedure, and • Court appointment of administrators—the procedure Where the administrator has completed a pre-pack sale of the business, there are additional regulatory requirements placed on the administrator which are set out in Statement of Insolvency Practice 16. In addition, where a sale is made to connected parties, Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 and the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/427 impose further requirements. For more information, see Practice Notes: Statement

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ) has announced that the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 has been published. The guide provides general information on how litigation should be conducted, including the relevant statutory provisions, rules of procedure, practice directions and case law on the procedural aspects of judicial review. The guide also includes contact details for the court, information on forms and fees and current addresses for serving documents on government departments. The 2024 edition replaces the 2023 edition.

Public Law analysis: The Administrative Court has dismissed a claim for judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the Home Offices’s actions in placing asylum seekers in accommodation in the claimant’s local authority area. The Secretary of State’s (SSHD’s) actions were taken in purported exercise of her powers derived from and in purported performance of her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (‘the 1999 Act’). The claimant accepted that it was appropriate for a number of asylum seekers to be accommodated in its area but said that the number being accommodated there was excessive. The claimant said that the SSHD’s failure to reduce the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry more quickly and her placement of further asylum seekers were both unlawful. The SSHD accepted that the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry should be reduced. She contended that she was moving to implement a policy under which asylum seekers were accommodated more widely throughout the UK. However, she denied that there was any unlawfulness in the action she had taken thus far. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

The Administrative Court has announced a new procedure for opposed applications for extensions of time in London (excluding Planning Court cases), following concerns about late and unsupported applications. The Court says that too many parties are making last-minute requests without proper reasons or evidence, creating unfairness for other litigants—particularly those with caring responsibilities or who work part time—and causing inconvenience to the court. Under the new process, parties must first seek the agreement of all other parties. If an objection is raised, the objecting party must email the Administrative Court Office using the subject header ‘EOTOBJECTION’, explaining the reasons for the objection to the application. Time-critical applications will be prioritised, with duty ACO lawyers aiming to determine objections within one working day. A duty judge will be available daily to deal with reconsideration requests. Parties are warned not to assume that extensions will be granted.

Local Government analysis: The Administrative Court upheld the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care’s (‘PSA’) appeal against the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (‘GPhC’) Fitness to Practise (‘FTP’) Committee’s (‘Committee’) decision to stay proceedings on the basis that a fundamental mistake of fact had occurred enabling the GPhC to resile from their position to close the case against a registrant. This case reinforces and reconfirms the mantra all too well known to defence professional discipline lawyers that the healthcare regulator’s role in protecting public safety, maintaining the public interest and upholding professional standards prevails over the ‘sub-standard service, stress and disappointment’ caused to registrants (especially when alternative options were available to the Committee). In addition, this case provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and relevant case law surrounding stays of proceedings, abuse of process, other grounds for a stay, legitimate expectation, and the power to correct an error. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.